starknet-io
Meta SNIP-75: security council
For reference, this is the current upgradability structure:
Starknet would need to give up the permissions for all Proxy governors, Implementation governors, Verifier governors and bridge owners. Also, as per the Risk rosette framework and the Stages framework, the Exit window and Stage designation will stay at zero until forced transactions are implemented and proving is made permissionless.
Could we get Starkware's opinion and more clarity on the roadmap, @iliav-starkware? (Can't ping Boaz, though I know he owns this track)
Hey @Eikix, could you add sections "Rationale" and "Security considerations" to the SNIP, in order to keep a uniform syntax among SNIPs? Let's merge afterwards (after renumbering the SNIP)
Hey @Eikix, could you add sections "Rationale" and "Security considerations" to the SNIP, in order to keep a uniform syntax among SNIPs? Let's merge afterwards (after renumbering the SNIP)
before merging, could we get Boaz's input or whoever is in charge of the security council is Starknet? we could get the views of core devs of Starknet, since Security Council triggers downstream big changes to the L1 contracts of Starknet
There hasn't been any activity on this pull request recently, and in order to prioritize active work, it has been marked as stale. This PR will be closed and locked in 7 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions!
![github-actions[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
There hasn't been any activity on this pull request recently, and in order to prioritize active work, it has been marked as stale. This PR will be closed and locked in 7 days if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions!
Deactivating Stale Label.
I've heard Starkware (SW) and Starknet Foundation (SNF) have iterated and found an alternative design for the Security Council. Can someone from SW or SNF modify this Pull Request and directly add their design here?
We'll then be able to merge the SNIP and move forward
@BoazStark could you address @Eikix 's comment above? I'm not aware of the developments
I've heard Starkware (SW) and Starknet Foundation (SNF) have iterated and found an alternative design for the Security Council. Can someone from SW or SNF modify this Pull Request and directly add their design here?
I've helped the Starknet Foundation with this one and I merged the design with the existing proposal, let me know what you think @Eikix
Overall good! what are the next steps wrt this SNIP? Should it be merged as "draft" and become "✅" when it is implemented? Where should the contract implementation come? In the SNIP? In another SNIP?